A7 crippled sensor?

[David Kilpatrick]

Barry\'s first comment implies the A7 is worse with Leica lenses; it appears that the problem is really with the A7R. Certainly, so far I can't make a profile which can force the 15mm Voigtlander to produce a neutral field file with the A7R. Here's what the 15mm does - on a shot where it does not matter too much - by way of extreme magenta casts and vignetting to the extremes:



I've been in two minds whether to return the A7R and try to get an A7 in exchange as the shutter delay or double shutter action is also pretty intrusive and makes flash about as bad as any of the NEX or Alpha models so far:

http://youtu.be/yX9oXHnJZEs

YouTube video shows the flash delays (in a way which you can see).

Then again, the optimum image quality is so extreme that I need to keep the A7R. Reason, all I have to do is obtain some of the better adaptors, and I will be able to test all makes of lens for my reviews - on the same sensor, manually focused. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, whatever - APS-C or full frame - the A7R provides a kind of 'test tool' body which removes my need to have multiple systems or keep borrowing different cameras to do reviews.

David

[bfitzgerald]

I'm only going on what I read and some shots I have seen. There is some confusion about the sensors and micro lenses.
What I've seen so far seems to suggest you'll get the best results with an adaptor and normal SLR lenses (hence putting the registration distance back to what it's intended)
Most of the rangefinder lens shots I've seen a distinctly unimpressive at wide angle and downright awful for ultra wide angle, that's not just the pricey Leica glass, but includes other makers like Voigtländer who have some excellent lenses too. So my take so far is rangefinder lens user looking for cheap body to put glass..you're going to be disappointed, unless you don't use wider angles.

Where this leaves Sony and their native lenses, who knows. Maybe they can design them ground up better suited to the task, but I'm suspicious about the lack of a real wider angle lens in the launch, and I'd be amazed if they can pull an UWA zoom off to a satisfactory level. They might run to adobe for corrections in raw I can't see any other way around it.

I'd go for the A7 all things being equal 24mp is plenty to print big, electronic first curtain is useful too.

[Dr. Harout]

...I'd go for the A7 all things being equal 24mp is plenty to print big, electronic first curtain is useful too.

I second that!

[Wes Gibbon]

I'm only going on what I read and some shots I have seen. There is some confusion about the sensors and micro lenses.
What I've seen so far seems to suggest you'll get the best results with an adaptor and normal SLR lenses (hence putting the registration distance back to what it's intended)
Most of the rangefinder lens shots I've seen a distinctly unimpressive at wide angle and downright awful for ultra wide angle, that's not just the pricey Leica glass, but includes other makers like Voigtländer who have some excellent lenses too. So my take so far is rangefinder lens user looking for cheap body to put glass..you're going to be disappointed, unless you don't use wider angles.

Where this leaves Sony and their native lenses, who knows. Maybe they can design them ground up better suited to the task, but I'm suspicious about the lack of a real wider angle lens in the launch, and I'd be amazed if they can pull an UWA zoom off to a satisfactory level. They might run to adobe for corrections in raw I can't see any other way around it.

I'd go for the A7 all things being equal 24mp is plenty to print big, electronic first curtain is useful too.

I'm not sure the lack of an ultra wideangle lens at this stage is significant. In practice the demand for them is much lower than for a 24-70, and with both Aplha FF and NEX the UWA came later. The NEX 10-16mm seems to be highly regarded, though it isn't exactly cheap.

[peterottaway]

I would agree.

For the last few months my most used landscape lenses has been my 50 mm and 100 mm. I am partial to my Nikon 180 / 2.8 as well. I'm not denying that some places and photographers are more the 12 mm to 16 mm type but in FF I don't work below 18mm.

[alphaomega]

Wes Gibbon

The NEX 10-16mm seems to be highly regarded, though it isn't exactly cheap.

Mine is fine but really, I only use it when I have to i.e. I can't get far enough back from intended object to be recorded. Mostly my E 16-50 will do.

[Wes Gibbon]

Wes Gibbon

The NEX 10-16mm seems to be highly regarded, though it isn't exactly cheap.

Mine is fine but really, I only use it when I have to i.e. I can't get far enough back from intended object to be recorded. Mostly my E 16-50 will do.

Quite. My comments were in response to a certain person who thinks that the short registration distance is going to cause a problem with E-mount lenses (why, I don't know. There's nothing stopping manufacturers from placing the rear element further from the sensor if they need to) and that there is something sinister in the lack of a UWA FF lens from day 1, rather than simply a question of priorities.

[bfitzgerald]

Wes Gibbon

The NEX 10-16mm seems to be highly regarded, though it isn't exactly cheap.

Mine is fine but really, I only use it when I have to i.e. I can't get far enough back from intended object to be recorded. Mostly my E 16-50 will do.

Quite. My comments were in response to a certain person who thinks that the short registration distance is going to cause a problem with E-mount lenses (why, I don't know. There's nothing stopping manufacturers from placing the rear element further from the sensor if they need to) and that there is something sinister in the lack of a UWA FF lens from day 1, rather than simply a question of priorities.

If they made the lens bigger to counter the close to sensor issues (and it is more challenging no question) then that kind of defeats the concept of a smaller more compact ILC system. So far none of the lenses released are that small, in fact rather the reverse. That's probably more down to in lens motors and electronic aperture control which does increase lens size.

Only observation to make so far is that the A7 is going to be better suited to SLR lenses with the adaptor, and not be a Mecca for rangefinder users esp not wider angle lenses.

[Vidgamer]

Wes Gibbon

The NEX 10-16mm seems to be highly regarded, though it isn't exactly cheap.

Mine is fine but really, I only use it when I have to i.e. I can't get far enough back from intended object to be recorded. Mostly my E 16-50 will do.

I like my 16-50 as well -- seems really sharp in the center at 16mm, but the corners always seem week. I'd rather use the much-hated 16mm lens (sometimes with the UWA adapter), although the 16-50 will work if that's what I happen to have.

If someone needs higher quality, they can spend more for the 10-18. Hopefully, the corners are better than these other lenses.

Quite. My comments were in response to a certain person who thinks that the short registration distance is going to cause a problem with E-mount lenses (why, I don't know. There's nothing stopping manufacturers from placing the rear element further from the sensor if they need to) and that there is something sinister in the lack of a UWA FF lens from day 1, rather than simply a question of priorities.

If they made the lens bigger to counter the close to sensor issues (and it is more challenging no question) then that kind of defeats the concept of a smaller more compact ILC system. So far none of the lenses released are that small, in fact rather the reverse. That's probably more down to in lens motors and electronic aperture control which does increase lens size.

Only observation to make so far is that the A7 is going to be better suited to SLR lenses with the adaptor, and not be a Mecca for rangefinder users esp not wider angle lenses.

People said this about the original Nex, that the lenses were large, but they really weren't (compared to DSLR versions). It was mostly the Nex-7 that had issues with the rangefinder lenses, with its higher density pixels, so I would have expected the same with the A7 and A7r.

I don't understand your last sentence when just above, David says that it's the A7r that has more problems with rangefinder lenses. Which is it?

[artington]

Well I defer to all the theoreticians here but I can pass on my few days' practical observations with the a7.

Firstly, the IQ is a noticeable improvement on that of the NEX7, which was no slouch itself. Secondly, I have seen no colour shift down to 28mm RF although with this focal length there is certainly light fall-off at the sides which is easily addressed in LR. There is no obvious shading using my M-Rokkor 40 CLE. Judging by the experiences of others related on other forums it is pretty clear that the a7 does much better in this regard than the a7r. I have also used the LA-EA4 with an old Minolta 17-35/3.5G and focus is very snappy and accurate. I really like the additional small heft of this camera compared with the NEX-7. My Leica-R lenses sit happily on it despite the additional adapter width - it feels very much like a pre-AF 1970s SLR in this regard. And, of course, it is an absolute joy to use the old manual SLR lenses at their native focal lengths. No colour shift problems with these.

For any NEX owner with spare batteries / charger this is a pretty obvious upgrade and very reasonably priced IMO. For everyone else, well I think mirrorless has come of age with this new system. Hats off to Sony. BTW if I was a betting man I would guess that the odds are narrowing against MFT being around in a couple of years time.

[alphaomega]

Interesting to read what an experienced photographer such as Artington has to say about the A7 after actual use. I don't agree with his concluding statement though [quote][BTW if I was a betting man I would guess that the odds are narrowing against MFT being around in a couple of years time./quote] Lots of people have invested in MFT lenses and when looking at what comes out of my RX100 camera and reading reviews of the MKII as well as the RX10 there is still potential in the 4/3 sensor. No reason they cannot go to 20Mp with a larger sensor that one inch. I thought that Sony were actually making a 4/3 sensor for Olympus. I would have thought that MFT was more likely to survive than original 4/3 with its shorter lens to sensor distance and smaller cameras.

[bfitzgerald]

Sony do make the sensors for the EM-1 and the previous model. I'd be surprised if they make the sensor for the Panasonic models though.

My thoughts are, despite the fact I'm not into micro 4/3 at all (played with a few bodies and lenses though) there is a place for "a genuinely compact system camera with compact lenses" and micro 4/3 has that. They have some nice lenses and not badly priced either (45mm f1.8 being one) once you mix in the various offerings from Panasonic too you have quite a good lens range being honest (something that APS-C NEX has not achieved so far)

The problem is that old chestnut..."price v performance" and with the A7 and it's FF sensor selling for £1300 odd, it's barn storm crazy for Olympus to think they can ask the same price for a sensor 1/4 of the size. Same with the EP-5 over £800 it's simply not going to fly. If Olympus get their head around "more sensible body prices" then they'll be fine longer term. You just can't get those prices for that sensor size product end of story. If someone brought out a £2000 APS-C camera people would find it quite ridiculous too (why bother when FF is cheaper) bar some die hard nature/sports shooters dead duck product.

So I won't predict the death of micro 4/3 just yet. I simply feel they have to adjust their expectations and look at the market situation. Blow for blow the A7 is a very easy sell v the EM-1 and looks quite good value v that. These micro 4/3 models do have small lenses, surprisingly small actually if you are a travel shooter it's right on target for your needs. You'll never get as small with APS-C and def not FF. On the other hand not everyone wants small..

Mirrorless hasn't come of age, it just has a full frame product with the marketing appeal behind that. Nothing more nothing less.
The A7 is actually well suited to some shooting I might do (scenic/landscape) but it is not well suited to other areas such as events/weddings. The lack of on board flash is a PITA for portrait shooting (where I need off camera flash I use the onboard to trigger it) for low light the advantages of full frame are reduced with no IBIS. The A7 convinces me APS-C is quite good enough for my needs, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that either.

So far mirrorless nothing grabs me much, bar the Fuji's and I'm not sold on that either right now.
Too many compromises for A mount shooters. Don't overestimate the A7 and what it will do, it will do ok in the market. It isn't suddenly going to dominate the market.

[Vidgamer]

....
The problem is that old chestnut..."price v performance" and with the A7 and it's FF sensor selling for £1300 odd, it's barn storm crazy for Olympus to think they can ask the same price for a sensor 1/4 of the size.....
Mirrorless hasn't come of age, it just has a full frame product with the marketing appeal behind that. Nothing more nothing less.
The A7 is actually well suited to some shooting I might do (scenic/landscape) but it is not well suited to other areas such as events/weddings. The lack of on board flash is a PITA for portrait shooting (where I need off camera flash I use the onboard to trigger it) for low light the advantages of full frame are reduced with no IBIS. The A7 convinces me APS-C is quite good enough for my needs, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that either.

So far mirrorless nothing grabs me much, bar the Fuji's and I'm not sold on that either right now.
Too many compromises for A mount shooters. Don't overestimate the A7 and what it will do, it will do ok in the market. It isn't suddenly going to dominate the market.

Who's saying it will dominate the market? This sounds like a bit of a straw-man argument Even if you thought mirrorless cameras were better than DSLRs, I wouldn't expect the A7 to suddenly "dominate". There are existing, established systems with decades of lenses and accessories behind them. Pros depends on certain lenses being available. Etc.

But some of us never needed the mirror, and thus more options are available. I'm happy to not drag around the huge brick. YMMV, etc. It is fun to see the DSLR fans squirm a bit. It does appear to make them uncomfortable. I guess for some it's the fear of losing an investment, and for others, the fear that in the future, they could be forced into cameras that lack features -- maybe all EVFs and no OVFs, just for one example.

I'm not sure what is needed for you to consider something has "come of age". Digital cameras have been constantly changing and improving, although the DSLR design in general has been pretty stable. I think of it more as the complete system -- to maintain Pro users, Canikon must create a very large line of lenses and accessories. Even the A-mount is missing some of the more obscure items, such as a ring flash or T/S lens, unless maybe there's an old Minolta item found used. So, even A-mount is seen as lacking by some. But is the A7 incomplete as a system? Sure. So was the Nex upon its introduction. It had limitations, and yet it still did things other cameras did not do for me.

Any time I look at cameras, it's a selection between various compromises. Do the advantages make up for the disadvantages? Price vs. performance is a big part of it, but also the ecosystem, whether or not you already have an investment in system lenses, whether size is important, etc.

I'm in agreement with you, though, that (at least for me) APS-C seems good enough. I'm really enjoying my Nex-6. It's lightweight and portable, reminds me of film cameras I've used in the past, and I find that I like the wide angles I can now get. If I mostly used large tele zooms, did a lot of birding, etc., I probably would favor other cameras, as the size advantages of the Nex would be lessened. In any event, it still is capable of a lot, and the sensor is fantastic. Processing from RAW just makes it even more fantastic. What a great dynamic range.

[alphaomega]

Barry Fitzgerald is clearly very knowledgeable (not a pun) and has his firm ideas about Sony and their products. Like all forecasters he cannot be right all the time and although he has come back to Sony he is often a stern critic. that is his entitlement and it is always interesting to read his thoughts.

There is an interesting interview with Mr. Kimio Maki, Senior General Manager, Digital Imaging Business Group, Sony Corp. here with his thoughts about Sony's development strategy and the reasons for their innovative new camera groups NEX, RX and A7/7r as well as video, sensors and BIONZ processors.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/20 ... amera-game

The QX series is selling beyond expectation and the RX1/1R has every lens to sensor distance adjusted manually to less that one micron for ultimate IQ etc. They claim that the RX10 produces better video than Canon's 5D III.

You do not get the impression that Sony are actually developing cameras to "dominate" but are carefully selecting particular user groups and give them what they desire. As I have stated before, if you cannot beat competition at their own game develop your own and be the most desirable.
My requirements are different from Barry Fitzgerald. I am finding now that most of my images for Alamy are taken with my RX100, followed by my NEX-6 and then A580 last by a mile. I am watching Sony's next moves and any future purchases would likely be a NEX-6 or 7 upgrade provided the EVF was much improved over NEX-6 in sunny conditions. My interest in a DSLR with OVF is diminishing rapidly and I am sure that the new generations are wedded to EVF and rear touch screens. Sony's long term strategy could be a danger to CAN/NIK if they don't respond in kind. Just a thought.

[bfitzgerald]

I've been fairly harsh on Sony for some time now, I won't deny that. But I've also seen some fairly obvious mistakes in the past from them that's made me question their ability to tune into different types of users.

I don't doubt for one moment Sony are quite capable of making decent cameras, and good lenses.
Reading the IR interview didn't really shed much light bar the push on NEX seemingly as a response to the increasing use of smart phones by many users. But I've long held the view average DSLR user or photo enthusiast isn't going to use a smart phone for much of their shooting (bar the odd shots here and there and the convenience aspect) I never really saw smarthphones as a threat to some types of cameras, bar mostly the compact sector.

Sony are basically saying NEX is a sort of make it smaller option for people who are more serious or want better phone beating IQ. The problem is smart phones have that instant connectivity wifi, though the network etc that people like. They are basically small computers/tablets with a camera. And for some people average Joe etc their images and videos are just fine for facebook or whatever they do with them. That's the "good enough" aspect coming into play.

I don't think Sony have really understood the needs of the hard core of photographers who are quite serious about their shooting, either as a hobby, doing some work or even full on pro level shooters. There is quite a range of users there, but they are basically the same people who were using "more serious" stuff back in 35mm days. Biggest problem for me is Sony seem very narrow minded about what xyz users want. I think they class almost everyone as a consumer type photographer, and don't seem to quite understand what users like myself are looking for. They seem somewhat obsessed with "doing something different/unique"

I have news, cameras are boring..they just take pictures. I don't really need unique, I'm looking for reliable, well designed, with good logical handling and not lots of gimmicks or flaws that should be ironed out before a product hits the shelves. I'm not going to just buy something because it's different, that's not enough no party tricks impress me, but being consistent does longer term.

I also strongly disagree with the idea that Sony should not try to compete with the top 2, products like the A7 despite being different cannot avoid a clash with Canikon in FF, it's down to the users to decide what they are looking for. After reading the interview I'm still of the view Sony are not tuned into non consumer shooters very well, and they don't appear to be willing to take on board what many users are saying.

As for the A7, it's a body only solution to some people. If you have xyz no. of A mount or other mount lenses there is little point investing in FE mount lenses that cannot be used on your other bodies, either you just use the body with adaptors (and I suspect most will do that) or you dump your DSLR stuff and move 100% to E mount, and currently I can't see that as a viable option at the moment due to so few lenses. I'm not actually against the idea of other concepts and cameras, but I do think Sony have not inspired confidence in how they have handled A mount over the years, some good moments, but probably more bad ones. I wouldn't be very confident in how Sony handle E mount based on that. I still think to this day it's few small people driving this direction from Sony, and they have the blinkers on and can't see the views of many of their users.